Newsflash: Feminists can wear any kind of hat they want, or no hat. They always could.Feminists can be any gendre, they always could be.In reference to video above about no longer needing the word feminism, sure if you don't want to use that word, you certainly don't have to, but there seem to be an awful lot of people who still do. and some seem to want to give the word new definitions, such as it doesn't really mean it is concerned with equal rights. Yet for many many people that is exactly what it means. So can millions and millions of people be persuaded that blue doesn't really mean blue? or that they should stop using the word blue?

Re: the license plate: That anyone would tie up the courts time over such a stupid thing as the word on their personalize plate is amazing to me. What a great country we live in. You would think there would be more important things for the court to contend with.

Silverstarqueen wrote:Newsflash: Feminists can wear any kind of hat they want, or no hat. They always could.Feminists can be any gendre, they always could be.In reference to video above about no longer needing the word feminism, sure if you don't want to use that word, you certainly don't have to, but there seem to be an awful lot of people who still do. and some seem to want to give the word new definitions, such as it doesn't really mean it is concerned with equal rights. Yet for many many people that is exactly what it means. So can millions and millions of people be persuaded that blue doesn't really mean blue? or that they should stop using the word blue?

Re: the license plate: That anyone would tie up the courts time over such a stupid thing as the word on their personalize plate is amazing to me. What a great country we live in. You would think there would be more important things for the court to contend with.

IMO, it's absolutely imperative that we retain the word "feminism". It is the correct term for those who are most interested in championing women's rights.

The word they choose to describe themselves helps us understand the entire spectrum of feminists today, from extreme to the more sensible moderates, and the actions they're taking in the name of "feminism". Quite simply, their primary focus is, and always will be, using the means available to them to do whatever they think needs to be done in order to improve the lives of women.

And the license plate doesn't have a "word" on it so much as a surname which has been used for decades on all the mans dealings in business. It's never been an issue until some feminist took photos of it and complained. Therein is the true waste of courts time, over a man using his families surname on his own license plate.

A persons surname is exactly that. Nothing to do with grabbing women or violence.

Terror Twins Inc. Catsumi and QK, at your disposal. We take Bitcoin. Applications to be our accountant and lawyer presently accepted.

On-line Gossip: Unless you have proof, all you have is slander and libel.

How many people would feel it necessary to take it to the courts to decide if they should have a particular word on a name plate, even if that "word" was their last name? This is a waste of the courts time. It's stupid. Hundreds of millions of people manage to survive somehow with just a regular number, or some allowable word on their plate if they are really just that special, but not this guy. Various license plates are denied for many reasons, so what. Some people just can't accept the word "No", perhaps told them for the first time in their life.

Silverstarqueen wrote:How many people would feel it necessary to take it to the courts to decide if they should have a particular word on a name plate, even if that "word" was their last name? This is a waste of the courts time. It's stupid. Hundreds of millions of people manage to survive somehow with just a regular number, or some allowable word on their plate if they are really just that special, but not this guy.

Perhaps this is the wrong question.

I'd ask: How many people would feel it necessary to complain about a licence plate that had been in use for 25 years? How many people would think this was actually worth making an issue of, to the point he'd have to go to court to continue to use it?

Silverstarqueen wrote:How many people would feel it necessary to take it to the courts to decide if they should have a particular word on a name plate, even if that "word" was their last name? This is a waste of the courts time. It's stupid. Hundreds of millions of people manage to survive somehow with just a regular number, or some allowable word on their plate if they are really just that special, but not this guy.

Perhaps this is the wrong question.

I'd ask: How many people would feel it necessary to complain about a licence plate that had been in use for 25 years? How many people would think this was actually worth making an issue of, to the point he'd have to go to court to continue to use it?

Perception bias?

Not many, which is still why it is stupid to tie up the courts time with it. Whoever the complainant was, is not the person who denies the plate. People make complaints about all kinds of things, many inconsequential, many not. Still, why should this tie up the courts?

Silverstarqueen wrote:Not many, which is still why it is stupid to tie up the courts time with it. Whoever the complainant was, is not the person who denies the plate. People make complaints about all kinds of things, many inconsequential, many not. Still, why should this tie up the courts?

I quite agree this shouldn't be tying up the courts.

A single person complained, and a public agency decided (based on a single complaint) the public's "right to be offended" is the most important right of all, and here we are with someone taking a stand.

I don't think I'm alone in hoping the world doesn't go much farther in this direction, and I find it interesting you see the plate-holder as the culprit who should back down.

Silverstarqueen wrote:How many people would feel it necessary to take it to the courts to decide if they should have a particular word on a name plate, even if that "word" was their last name? This is a waste of the courts time. It's stupid. Hundreds of millions of people manage to survive somehow with just a regular number, or some allowable word on their plate if they are really just that special, but not this guy. Various license plates are denied for many reasons, so what. Some people just can't accept the word "No", perhaps told them for the first time in their life.

This is a logical fallacy. The man has had the plates for over 25 years. The authorities/complainant are the ones who instigated the need for this to go to court. He is exercising his right to stand up for what he and most others believe should be his right to use his own name on his plate. Only through a vague pop culture reference which everyone will forget (or would have) forgotten about is this remotely offensive. He should not be chastised for defending himself.

Silverstarqueen wrote:Because dammit canadians have a Constitutional right to put anything they want on their license plate and no one is going to stop them, lol.

rustled wrote:No one's suggesting that. My goodness, why is it easier to resort to this than it is to simply acknowledge that in this case, the complaint and actions taken were maybe, just maybe, unwarranted?

That is exactly what Grabher's lawyer is suggesting, that his "freedom of expression" is somehow guaranteed on a license plate, vs. the right of the province to disallow particular words on a plate that they deem "inappropriate" . Either you accept that the province has a right to reject some plates, even if you don't agree with the logic of it, or you don't. If Grabher wins, there should be no restriction on certain words or phrases on a plate. Maybe the province should just revert to only allowing given letters and numbers on a plate, such as most people somehow manage to survive with, and end the whole debate right there. Must "freedom of expression" extend to a license plate, or not?

"In a court hearing on Wednesday, lawyer Jay Cameron of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms asked for the right to argue that the wording of regulations for personal licences are so vague that they violate the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights.Cameron said in an interview that Justice James Chipman allowed Grabher amend his original motion.Grabher’s lawyers can now make constitutional arguments against the regulation, rather than simply seek to have the government’s ruling overturned"It would be fairly simple to make the wording less vague, just don't allow personal plates.

ICBC has rejected 13,000 plates since 1987. e.g. 4PLAY has been rejected 100 times, what's wrong with that phrase? That's a lot of freedom of expression being squelched there. I really doubt that any one of those people thought to take it to court. Grown ups just select some other word or phrase and move on.

Last edited by Silverstarqueen on Feb 5th, 2018, 6:46 am, edited 2 times in total.